Let’s move on to more pleasant subject matters. “After birth abortion” seems a ripe choice to lighten the mood. A couple of pleasant, eugenics fiends (though they’ll never admit to being just that) named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva inform us via the Journal of Medical Ethics (which words in that title are lies? I see two.) that ‘‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
Read the entire revolting article here.
Any reader here knows I’m pro-choice down to my bone marrow. Amoral “ethicists” like Giubilini and Minerva give anti-choicers great leeway and comfort with vile treatises like this one. It’s titled as if to give Rick Santorum and the like all the proof they need: “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”. Giubilini and Minerva’s real point is pretty simple once the academic soot is sandblasted away. Some babies are inconvenient to parents so why not snap their necks in the crib so everyone can get on with the important aspects of living….such as shopping, taking in a ball game, and dining at any of a number of nice restaurants.
Dangerous, intelligent imbeciles like Giubilini and Minerva have no moral compass so take no responsibility for the obvious results of legalized infanticide. They hide behind academia (Oxford in this case) so they can play out their childish Let’s Play God fantasies, which have been dressed up with advanced degrees.
The results in the real world? Inconvenient children would be murdered willy nilly at increasingly later ages. When does a child really become a person anyway? 2 days? 2 years? Personally I don’t trust anyone’s thinking before they reach 25. There were a few in the last election cycle I wished at moments had been stripped of their personhood.
Let me invoke the obvious phrase: slippery slope.
Next stop: Let’s start killing old, infirm people, especially the homebound in neighborhoods ripe for gentrification. And then let’s kill people in mid-life who’ve had incapacitating accidents or are stricken with disease. What value to they have? Care taking can be very inconvenient, after all. One might miss work. Or a midday soap opera. You wanted a baby with blue eyes but got one with brown eyes? Kill him. Your child won’t sleep through the night? Kill her. Don’t like the grumpy old man on the bus? Make a case that he’s a drain on society and rather unpleasant to boot - then kill him. Once we’ve concluded an infant isn’t a person how hard can it be to strip the personhood of anyone we don’t like, anyone who causes us inconvenience. Hitler did it to an entire population. Jews went from cold-blooded elites, to subhuman deviants, to skin lampshades in about 12 years. One starts the process by stripping personhood.
If you can’t answer with ease “Why a baby should live?” then Santorum and the rest of the let’s patrol and control women’s bodies crew has won. Human beings have value. Period. Disabled infants have value. Anyone who’s ever been a caretaker for a person of any age knows this. Caring for our young, even the most taxing, has value…for all of us.
Imagine a society in which infanticide – the murder of the most vulnerable – was legal and accepted. Extrapolate that zeitgeist out to teenagers. To adults. Society has decided that infants have no value, therefore I might not have any – or the people I don’t like have no value. We’d have mass shootings not periodically, but daily. Hourly. None of this seems to have occurred to the utterly irresponsible Giubilini and Minerva.
Forcing women to carry a fetus to term is another matter, which is not for the state. When the fetus becomes a person is important to discuss and argue. In my view, women must be allowed control their bodies. But Giubilini and Minerva don’t care about this. They are inviting dehumanization of actual humans, already born, to justify killing them. Himmler must be smiling in hell.
Finally, I find Giubilini and Minerva, if not infants, than at least morally infantile and would like to suggest that it would be perfectly within their parent’s rights to…I mean are Giubilini and Minerva really persons? Let’s discuss this, write an academic paper or two on whether or not Giubilini and Minerva are, in fact, persons, then revisit the question. It seems to me they might just be taking up space, using resources, and causing inconvenience.